`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. Overview of the ’156 Patent .............................................................................. 2
`III. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Statement of Facts .......................... 17
`A. Petitioner’s Characterization of the Invention ............................................ 17
`B. Petitioner’s Characterization of the Prosecution History ........................... 18
`IV. Patent Owner Has Statutorily Disclaimed Claims 10, 18, 20-21, and 23-24 .. 21
`V. Argument .......................................................................................................... 22
`A. Petitioner Has Failed to Provide A Structural Analysis for the Sole
`Independent Claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and Hence Has Not Met Its
`Burden of Prima Facie Obviousness. ......................................................... 23
`B. Petitioner Has Presumed/Used Unreasonable Claim Constructions, and
`Has Not Met Its Burden of Prima Facie Obviousness. .............................. 29
`C. Petitioner Has Failed to Provide Claim Constructions for Several Key
`Terms, and Has Not Met Its Burden of Prima Facie Obviousness. ........... 34
`D. Petitioner Has Assumed “Broadest Reasonable” Claim Constructions for
`Several Key Terms that are Unreasonable, and Has Not Met Its Burden of
`Prima Facie Obviousness. .......................................................................... 38
`E. Petitioner’s Proposed Reasons for Combining the Teachings of the
`References Rely on
`Impermissible Hindsight, Hence Petitioner’s
`Obviousness Analysis is Defective. ............................................................ 46
`VI. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Ulrich Hackenberg’s biographical information
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Hackenberg explains VW’s new infotainment architecture
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,539,775 to Tuttle et al.
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,629,981 to Nerlikar
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,311,834 to Gazdzinski
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,301,456 to Gazdzinski
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Patent Owner’s July 11, 2011 Amendment and Response to
`Office Action
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0077100 to
`Hancock et al.
`
`Statutory Disclaimer of Claims 10, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156 in compliance with 35 U.S.C. §
`253(a)
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`IEEE 802.11 from Wikipedia website
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`GPRS & EDGE from 3GPP website
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`Mobile broadband from Wikipedia website
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`Impact of Network Performance on Cloud Speech Recognition
`by Mehdi Assefi et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................ 2
`
`3M Innovative Properties, Co., v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373-74
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339,
`115 USPQ2d 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) .............................................. 23
`
`Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................... 23
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission,
`161 F. 3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 23
`
`Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-01170, Paper 9 (Feb. 17, 2015) ...................................................... 23
`
`Pride Solutions, LLC v. Not Dead Yet Manufacturing, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00627, Paper 14 (Mar. 17, 2014) ............................................. 25, 26
`
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................... 25
`
`In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) .............................. 26
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............. 26
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC,
`IPR2013-00036, Paper 65 (Mar. 7, 2014) ............................................... 26, 33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................... 27, 48
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) ............................. 27
`
`Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands,
`555 F.3d 984, 993, 89 USPQ2d 1870, 1877 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................... 27
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ......................................... 34, 45-46
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 34
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................ 34
`
`In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......................................................... 34
`
`In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971) ..................................................... 47
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................... 47
`
`In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................................................... 49
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 49
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ................................................................................................. 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 253(a) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 22
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........ 22, 37
`
`MPEP § 2111 ............................................................................................... 37, 38, 45
`
`MPEP § 2143 ..................................................................................................... 27, 48
`
`MPEP § 2181 ........................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) has filed an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) petition against U.S. Patent 8,065,156 (the “’156 Patent”) owned
`
`by West View Research, LLC (“Patent Owner”). The ’156 Patent is one of many
`
`owned by Patent Owner that protects an improved computerized information
`
`system for adaptively and rapidly providing user-specific and other information to
`
`users within a mobile transport apparatus. Petitioner has also filed IPR petitions
`
`against seven other patents owned by Patent Owner. The other petitions, which
`
`involve a computerized information system like the system described in the ’156
`
`Patent, were filed in IPR2016-00123 (Patent 8,719,037), IPR2016-00124 (Patent
`
`8,706,504),
`
`IPR2016-00125
`
`(Patent 8,290,778),
`
`IPR2016-00137
`
`(Patent
`
`8,682,673),
`
`IPR2016-00146
`
`(Patent 8,719,038),
`
`IPR2016-00156
`
`(Patent
`
`8,296,146), and IPR2016-00177 (Patent 8,781,839). All of the foregoing petitions
`
`have been granted by the Board.
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of Claims 10, 11, 15, 18, and 20-24 of
`
`the ’156 Patent solely on the basis of obviousness. The Board instituted an inter
`
`partes review of Claims 15 and 22 of the ’156 Patent on the proposed combination
`
`of Handcock and Lind, and Claim 11 of the ’156 Patent on the proposed
`
`combination of Handcock, Lind, and Boyer. However, Petitioner (i) fails to
`
`perform statutorily mandated analysis of the claims; (ii) fails to propose reasonable
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`interpretations for a number of material claim limitations; and (iii) fails to set forth
`
`a prima facie case of obviousness for any of the challenged claims. None of the
`
`specific grounds of obviousness and combinations identified by the Petitioner and
`
`the Board presents an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
`
`(Fed Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing
`
`that any challenged claim of the ’156 Patent is unpatentable due to obviousness.
`
`Thus, the Board should find Claims 11, 15, and 22 of the ’156 Patent valid.
`
`II. Overview of the ’156 Patent
`inter alia, 1 an
`The ’156 Patent discloses,
`
`improved computerized
`
`information system for adaptively and rapidly providing user-specific and other
`
`information to users within a mobile transport apparatus (e.g., a land-mobile
`
`shuttle or other such vehicle) within a contracted period of time, including for use
`
`on their personnel electronic device or PED, such as e.g., after leaving the vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 1:51-60, 10:33-36. Generally, users of such transport
`
`vehicles need a means to intuitively (and quickly) converge on information
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The ’156 Patent is one of twenty-five (25) currently issued U.S. Patents claiming
`
`priority from the common 09/330,101 parent application filed on June 10, 1999.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`enabling them to, for instance, find an entity (e.g., business) of interest. Id. at 1:61-
`
`2:7.
`
`Problematically, such users may have neither (i) any pre-existing familiarity
`
`of how the information system of the vehicle operates (having never been in the
`
`vehicle before); nor (ii) any pre-existing familiarity of where the desired entity is
`
`located (including relative to their current location or the transport vehicle itself).
`
`Id. at 1:61-67.
`
`Information pertinent to the user’s activities after egress from the vehicle
`
`may include e.g., directions to a local restaurant or transportation facility, weather
`
`information for their locale, etc. Id. at 1:51-60.
`
`Moreover, such users
`
`require a degree of
`
`individual,
`
`repeatable
`
`“personalization”, such that their identity (and preselected preferences) can be
`
`applied to information they obtain each different time they enter the same (or
`
`different) transportation modality. Id. at 3:13, 4:10-13, 12: 1-3, 19:43-20:8. Hence,
`
`certain preferences should be applied to that individual user regardless of the
`
`particular platform they select for transport (e.g., one of several available elevator
`
`cars in a building, a different vehicle they happen to use on a given day, etc.), also
`
`known as “platform agnosticism”.
`
`FIG. 1 of the ’156 Patent, an annotated version of which is reproduced
`
`below, shows one exemplary embodiment of the computerized information system,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`which includes, inter alia, a central processing unit (e.g., microprocessor), digital
`
`graphics co-processor, digital signal processor (DSP) and associated speech
`
`processing (digitization/recognition) computer programs, a capacitive touch screen
`
`input and display device, an entity database (not shown), a speech synthesis
`
`module, a high-speed data interface to e.g., a user portable device or PED, and a
`
`high-speed network interface (see e.g., FIG. 3 reproduced and annotated below,
`
`showing one embodiment of a wireless interface using an IEEE Std. 802.11 (aka
`
`“Wi-Fi”) wireless interface). Id. at 7:51-55.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`
`
`The apparatus of FIG. 1 is an embodiment of a specific architecture
`
`optimized for speed, utilizing only then (circa mid-1999) recently available state-
`
`of-the-art technologies including use of data compression (e.g., code-excited linear
`
`prediction, or CELP) to, inter alia, reduce wireless data bandwidth requirements,
`
`Hidden Markov Modeling (HMM)-based speech recognition, at least four digital
`
`processors (a DSP, a separate graphics co-processor, a CPU/microprocessor, as
`
`well as a microcontroller), direct memory access (DMA) for the CPU which
`
`expedites data accesses to/from RAM, a (then) very high-bandwidth wireless
`
`interface (i.e., IEEE Std. 802.11) to enable rapid wireless transmission or receipt of
`
`large data structures such as image files, and a capacitive touch-screen input and
`
`display device with supporting iconic-based software (and pre-grouped topical
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`areas of information) to enable rapid user intuition/assimilation for ease of use. Id.
`
`at 2:64-3:4, 6:8-24, 6:36-46, 10:32-36.
`
`Patent Owner notes anecdotally in passing that the technology of the ’156
`
`Patent is now largely ubiquitous; numerous modern “smartphones”, tablet
`
`computers, and in fact vehicles have now (more than 16 years later) whole-sale
`
`adopted such an architecture, and specifically the foregoing combination of user
`
`interface elements (e.g., icon-based capacitive touch screen and speech input),
`
`processing elements, and wireless
`
`technologies. Dr. Ulrich Hackenberg,
`
`responsible for the technical development of all of Volkswagen Group Brands (of
`
`which Petitioner is one)2, recently stated the following:
`
`The use of touch screens on smartphone has really been an
`overwhelming success; we will consistently use them in our vehicles
`as well. …Volkswagen is currently working on integration that allows
`the use of safe, familiar controls during driving.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 3 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
` 2
`
` “Since July 1, 2013, he has been a member of the Board of Management of AUDI
`
`AG with responsibility for Audi’s Technical Development. In addition, he is also
`
`responsible for the technical development of all the Volkswagen Group’s brands.”
`
`Ex. 2001 at 2.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`Interaction by touch is …mainly impressive because it is easy to learn
`and offers direct, immediate interaction with the elements that are
`presented. Moreover, the customer is accustomed to touch controls in
`other areas. At Volkswagen, we are clearly relying on touch as a
`cross-segment, brand-shaping element for the control of information
`and communication systems in our vehicles.
`
`Id. at 2 (emphasis added). The reader need only pick up their smartphone and
`
`invoke the resident “maps” program via the touchscreen and say “Starbucks” or the
`
`like to attest to this ubiquity.
`
`FIG. 15 of the ’156 Patent (reproduced and annotated below) illustrates one
`
`exemplary embodiment of a wireless interface useful as part of the computerized
`
`system of FIG. 1 for e.g., “automatic personalization” of the aforementioned
`
`functions when the user is proximate to or within the vehicle.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`Further, the ’156 Patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 5,539,775
`
`(Ex. 2003), which discloses a method and system in which a pseudo noise (PN)
`
`sequence is generated for use within a wireless interface, and U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,629,981 (Ex. 2004), which discloses a method and system in which authorizes
`
`and maintains information security across a wireless interface, such as that shown
`
`in FIG. 15. Ex. 1001 at 18:11-24; Ex. 2003 at 3:18-25; Ex. 2004 at 6:9-19.
`
`
`
`The exemplary computerized information system disclosed in the ’156
`
`Patent improves upon previous vehicular information systems (circa mid-1999) by,
`
`inter alia, providing a completely intuitive user interface which permits greatly
`
`simplified input to the system when the user is within the transport apparatus (e.g.,
`
`via a simple spoken name, or touch on a touch screen correlating to a limited
`
`number of prescribed categories of information). Ex. 1001 at 8:3-10:2, FIG. 4. The
`
`’156 Patent technology allows the user to converge on the desired entity from
`
`multiple possibilities in a short period of time due to its simplified user interface,
`
`and spatially orient themselves relative to the transport apparatus and the desired
`
`entity or organization using intuitive and localized imagery, so that the user can
`
`merely utilize the image to find the entity (and not have to remember complicated
`
`lists of directions, addresses, etc.). Id. at 8:3-10:2, 1:61-2:7, FIG. 4, FIG. 5. The
`
`heavily hierarchical menu structures of prior art systems, e.g., first activate the
`
`system, then select or say the top-level function (e.g., “navigation”), then select or
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`say the sub-function (e.g., “restaurants”), then enter a geographic region (e.g.,
`
`“San Diego, CA”), then enter a street name or address (e.g., “Broadway”), etc.,
`
`were completely obviated in the ’156 Patent, since such paradigms were
`
`incompatible with, inter alia, having to converge on an entity location or other
`
`desired information within “only seconds”. Id. at 10:35-36.
`
`The ’156 Patent provides the foregoing features in the exemplary
`
`embodiment with a specific user interface and voice protocol algorithm (see e.g.,
`
`FIG. 4, reproduced and annotated below) which obviates the user from having to
`
`have any prior knowledge of how to operate the system (e.g., the user need not
`
`have ever used the system before, since it is completely intuitive how to operate it),
`
`and need only know a name or part of a name of the desired entity for which they
`
`seek to obtain information. Id. at 8:27-29. The algorithm includes specific
`
`protocols for each of (i) audio interchange with the user (e.g., speech), (ii) tactile
`
`interchange with the user (e.g., touch screen), and (iii) combinations of (i) and (ii).
`
`Id. at 8:3-9:2.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`
`
`In the “voice prompt” branch (left side of FIG. 4 flowchart), the user is
`
`prompted through a series of audible prompts to enter information (which may be
`
`entered via speech of the user or the exemplary touch screen) until they converge
`
`on a particular desired match from results obtained from a database (which may be
`
`a single match, or several possible matches). Id. at 8:56-64. Once the desired
`
`“match” is identified by the information system, the appropriate graphic or image
`
`is automatically selected for retrieval (e.g., from a networked server) and displayed
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`to the user to provide spatial orientation and a graphic representation of directions.
`
`Id. at 8:51-56, 9:47-60. The provided image or graphic is highly localized, so as to
`
`immediately spatially orient the user to their local surroundings, including in the
`
`exemplary embodiment the image or graphic rendering at least a portion indoors to
`
`a building or structure. Id. at 9:47-60.
`
`Moreover, with regard to enabling the user to find the desired information
`
`(e.g., directions or a map to a local restaurant) and easily “take it with them” after
`
`egress from the transport apparatus on their portable device, such functionality
`
`obviates the user having to establish a separate wireless or other connection to a
`
`network via the portable device. Users within transport apparatus (and/or less
`
`capable portable devices such as the exemplary Palm Pilot devices prevalent circa
`
`1999) may not have an ability, or time, to establish a separate wired or wireless
`
`connection. Id. at 11:15-18. The exemplary embodiment of the ’156 Patent
`
`information system solves that issue by providing a vehicle-indigenous interface
`
`such that desired data can be conveniently transferred to portable devices via e.g.,
`
`preset “one touch” touch-screen or application software commands. Id. at 11:8-
`
`12:3, FIG. 7.
`
`FIG. 7 of the ’156 Patent (reproduced and annotated below) illustrates one
`
`exemplary embodiment of the information system of FIG. 1, configured with the
`
`capacitive touch screen input and display device and the high-speed data interface
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2015-01941
`
`
`
`
`Patent 88,065,156
`
`
`
`
`
`(e.g., UUniversal Serial Bus pprotocol viia a multi--pin conneector). Id. aat 11:23-366. In
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the illusstrated exaample, touuch-sensitivve functionns correspponding too a pluralitty of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“pre-designated” iinformatioon types (e..g., weatheer, directorry for a buiilding, etc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) are
`
`s the
`
`shown,
`
`
`
`
`so as to ennable “one touch” seaarch and d
`
`
`
`
`
`ownload ccapability ffor the userr. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 11:500-59.
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicaation softwware residennt on the uuser’s portaable devicee may alsoo be used a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`basis off both (i) iinstigation
`
`
`
`
`
`of a searcch of the rremote dat
`
`
`
`
`
`abase(s) vvia the netwwork
`
`
`
`
`
`interface and the
`
`
`
`informatioon system,
`
`and/or (ii
`
`
`
`) downloaad of desireed informaation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to the portable devvice. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`11:23-28.
`
`
`
`FFIGS. 6a annd 6b of thhe ’156 Paatent furtheer illustratee examplees of such ““one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`touch” iinformation selectionn available to users o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f the informmation sysstem.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2015-01941
`
`
`
`
`Patent 88,065,156
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ed in the ’m disclosetion systemd informatThe commputerized
`
`
`
`
`
`156 Patennt specificaation
`
`
`
`further
`
`improves
`
`
`
`upon prrevious (mmid-1999 aand prior)) vehiculaar informaation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systemss by providding a nummber of otheer features
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, includingg inter aliaa:
`
`
`
`
`
`integrateed use off short-rannge wireleess technoology (e.gg., RFID)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`associateed protoccols
`
`
`
`for
`
`
`
`automattic wireleess
`
`
`
`
`
`identtification
`
`and
`
`
`
`authentication of uusers (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`1001 at 117:50-20:88; see also
`
`
`
`Ex. 2005
`
` and
`
`
`
`Ex. 20066);
`
`
`
`
`
`same display) of
`
`
`
`secondaryy content tto a user
`
`
`
`
`
`(e.g., a usser selectinng a
`
`
`
`
`
`given toopical cateegory via
`
`
`
`h screen
`the touch
`
`or other
`
`
`
`input willl be
`
`
`
`automatiically pressented withh contextuually relevvant “seconndary” conntent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as
`
`
`
`advertising, in addittion to thee requestedd “primaryy” informattion)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`
`
`automatiic “contexxt” determmination, seelection, aand presenntation (onn the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2015-01941
`
`
`
`
`Patent 88,065,156
`
`
`01 at Ab
`(Ex. 10
`
`
`stract, 15::19-16:43,
`
`
`
`20:9-24:118, 24:39--25:36, 266:55-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28:35, FFIGS. 18a-118d); and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(iii)
`
`ual-band,
`integrateed use of vvarious vis
`
`
`
`
`
`in data
`
`
`
`communnication wwith the
`
`
`
`
`
`infra-red, aand/or ultrrasonic sennsors
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`informatioon systemm that ennable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`monitoriing of areaas externall to the veehicle (andd display oof such datta on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the displlay device)), such as ffor securityty purposess (Id. at 155:19-16:43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`also Id. at FIG. 13 (reproducced and annnotated bellow)).
`
`
`
`
`
`ent are repe ’156 Pateaims of theThe chaallenged cl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`roduced beelow for reeference:
`
`
`
`storage
`10.
`
`
`Computer r
`
`
`readablee apparattus comprrising a
`
`
`
`medium, saaid storagge mediumm compris
`
`
`ing at leaast one ccomputer
`m being
`
`
`
`
`
`program wwith a plurrality of innstructions,, the storaage mediu
`
`m p
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`part of a computerized information system disposed on or within a
`transport apparatus configured to transport at least one person from
`one location to another, said at least one program being configured
`to:
`
`receive an input from a user of the transport apparatus, the
`input relating to a desired function;
`cause access of a remote server via an associated wireless
`interface to access information relating to the desired function;
`receive accessed information via the wireless interface; and
`implement the desired function using at least a portion of the
`received information;
`wherein said at least one program is further configured to:
`establish an ad hoc communication link with a portable
`computerized device of a user of the transport apparatus; and
`download at least a portion of the received information
`to the portable computerized device via the communication link.
`
`11. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein said download of said
`at least a portion of the received information to the portable
`computerized device via the communication link is initiated by
`software resident on the portable device.
`
`15. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein:
`said remote server is in communication with a database of
`business entities, said database being searchable at least by a name of
`a business entity; and
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`said input comprises a digitized representation of a speech
`input, the speech input being received via a microphone located
`within said transport apparatus, the speech comprising said name of
`said business entity.
`
`18. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the implementation of
`the desired function comprises synthesizing speech for playout over
`one or more speakers disposed within said transport apparatus, the
`speech being synthesized based at least in part on said received
`information.
`
`20. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein said received
`information is configured specifically for the user.
`
`21. The apparatus of claim 20, wherein said configuration
`specifically for the user is based at least in part on data stored on a
`remote server, the data relating specifically to that user.
`
`22. The apparatus of claim 21, wherein said data stored on a
`remote server relating specifically to that user is based at least in part
`on one or more previously supplied user-selected configuration
`parameters.
`
`23. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein said input relating to a
`desired function comprises an input to obtain information relating to
`a particular destination or entity.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`
`24. The apparatus of claim 23, wherein said at least one
`program
`is
`further configured
`to receive a second digitized
`representation of speech input relating to the particular destination or
`entity in order to resolve one or more ambiguities associated
`therewith.
`
`Id. at 25:37-63; 26:9-16; 26:29-33; and 26:38-54.
`
`III. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Statement of Facts
`Patent Owner first provides the following responses to various statements set
`
`forth by Petitioner in Sections III.A and III.B of the Petition.
`
`Petitioner’s Characterization of the Invention
`
`A.
`As noted in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Petitioner characterizes
`
`the invention as follows:
`
`The ’156 patent describes an elevator information system, shown
`generally in Figs. 1 and 2.
`
`Pet. at 2. However, the foregoing characterization of the invention is incomplete,
`
`and has substantive omissions so as to be misleading. Specifically, the ’156 Patent
`
`specification states:
`
`The present invention relates to the field of personnel transport
`apparatus, and specifically to elevators and similar devices for
`transporting people from one location to another which incorporate
`various information technologies.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:34-37.
`
` It is noted that while the system and methods of the invention
`disclosed herein are described primarily with respect to an elevator
`car, certain aspects of the invention may be useful in other
`applications, including, without limitation, other types of personnel
`transport devices such as trams or shuttles…
`
`Id. at 5:28-33. Hence, the specification as originally filed clearly contemplated
`
`application of the various aspects of the invention(s) to, inter alia, other types of
`
`transport apparatus and transport devices.
`
`Petitioner’s Characterization of the Prosecution History
`
`B.
`As noted in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Petitioner contends the
`
`following in summarizing the prosecution history of the ’156 Patent:
`
`[T]he remaining limitations were found to be in the prior art cited by
`the Examiner, i.e., Hancock ’100, which was not disputed by Mr.
`Gazdzinski.
`
`Pet. at 5 (emphasis added). As an initial matter, Petitioner refers to an Amendment
`
`dated July 11, 2011, submitted in the ’857 Application but has failed to provide the
`
`Amendment as an exhibit and has also failed to identify specific portions of the
`
`Amendment that support Petitioner’s contention. Additionally, the foregoing
`
`characterization of the prosecution history of the ’156 Patent is incorrect and
`
`misleading. Specifically, in Patent Owner’s July 11, 2011 Amendment and
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`Response to Office Action (“July 11, 2011 Response”; Ex. 2007), Patent Owner
`
`stated:
`
`Please cancel Claims 41-56 and 66-84 without prejudice,
`amend Claim 59, and add new Claims 85-113…
`
`Ex. 2007 at 2 (emphasis added). Patent Owner further stated in relevant part:
`
`The Examiner should infer no (i) adoption of a position with respect
`to patentability, (ii) change in the Applicant’s position with respect to
`any claim or subject matter of the invention, or (iii) acquiescence in
`any way to any position taken by the Examiner, based on such
`cancellations or additions.
`
`Id. at 10-11 (emphasis added).
`
`Hence, Petitioner’s assertion that “the remaining limitations [of Claim 10]
`
`were found to be in the prior art cited by the Examiner, i.e., Hancock ’100, which
`
`was not disputed by Mr. Gazdzinski” misrepresents the above facts. In fact, Patent
`
`Owner made several statements explicitly indicating that the Examiner’s positions
`
`in the Office Action (including that on Hancock ’100) were not acquiesced to by
`
`Patent Owner. See 3M Innovative Properties, Co., v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350
`
`F.3d 1365, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner also contends that:
`
`Hancock ’100, which, as stated above, was cited by the Examiner
`during prosecution of the ’156 patent, claims on its face to be a
`continuing application of a number of prior applications, including
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No.09/257,462, which issued as
`Hancock.
`
`Pet. at 5 (footnote 2). Again, Petitioner relies on evidence to support its petition but
`
`has failed to provide Hancock ’100 as an exhibit and has also failed to identify
`
`specific portions of Handcock ’100 that support Petitioner’s contention. Contrary
`
`to Petitioner’s statements, Hancock ’100 states on its face that it is a continuation-
`
`in-part (CIP) of one prior application with Serial No. 09/257,462, which eventually
`
`issued as Pat. No. 6,202,023 (“Hancock”, Ex. 1003), the latter which is a
`
`continuation-in-part (CIP) of Serial No. 09/188,153, and not “a continuing
`
`application of a number of prior applications” (aka a mere continuation) as
`
`Petitioner contends. Ex. 2008 at page 1; Ex. 1003 at page 1. In other words,
`
`Hancock ’100 states on its face that it is a CIP of one other application, which is a
`
`CIP of a prior application, and so forth.
`
`Hence, at least portions of Hancock ’100 (Hancock ’100 being specifically
`
`relied on by the Examiner in his Section 102 rejection of inter alia Claim 66 of the
`
`’156 Patent during prosecution) are not prior art to the ’156 Patent at issue in this
`
`IPR, in that the effective filing date for that subject matter is at best the filing date
`
`of Application Serial No. 09/707,213, i.e., November 3, 2000, which is more than a
`
`year after the priority date of the ’156 Patent (June 10, 1999). Ex. 2008 at page 1.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01941
`Patent 8,065,156
`
`
`IV. Patent Owner Has Statutorily Disclaimed Claims 10, 18, 20-21, and
`